True, the Conference of 128 delegates sitting at the seat of the League of Nations under the contract can only "recommend;" but what follows. the failure of any member [nation] to carry out the recommendation? Failure on the part of a member [nation] to obey the recommendation of the Conference is followed by (1) publication of the failure, (2) an enquiry by a Commission selected by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, (3) recommendations of "an economic character" against the defaulting member [nation], (4) appeal by any member [nation] to a Court of International Justice, followed by a decision indicating still further penalties of an economic character. Is there any doubt but what these economic penalties ultimately will be invoked against a "defaulting" member [nation]?

There appears to be no limit to the power of the proposed International Labour Conference within the broad field of industrial and labor problems. It is conceivable that the industrial supremacy of the United States, the hours of labor, the conditions of labor, the operation and management of industries both great and small-of railroads, mines, etc.,-ultimately might be controlled by the proposed International Labour Con. ference of 128 members (in which the United States would have only four votes) engineered by a Governing Board of 12-all of whom may be

in Europe, probably at Geneva. It is conceivable that ultimately the control of America's domestic industries and transportation so far as labor is concerned, might be transferred from Washington and the several State Capitols to Geneva or the seat of the League of Nations. The possibilities exist and the perils are apparent.

Furthermore, if the contemplated League of Nations may use the "economic boycott," the International Labour Conference, an integral part of the League, may do likewise with equal effect. What is meant by an economic boycott? Refusal to trade, a blockade, cutting off supplies of raw material, food, coal, etc. Does America wish to be controlled by a Labour Conference of 128 men and a Governing Board of 12 men sitting in Europe? Is the United States prepared to surrender its industrial and economic rights to a coterie of men all but four un-American? Is the United States willing to jeopardize its fiscal and economic policy, its industrial independence, its supremacy? It is unthinkable.

It is argued that such a thing is impossible. Yet it is possible if the Treaty of Peace is ratified as it is with the provisions of the International Labour Conference intact. The Treaty of Peace is a contract. The creation of an International Labour Conference is a part of this contract and the signing of the contract by the representatives of the United States makes binding upon the United States all the provisions, agreements and undertakings recited therein. They can be enforced as

The leading article in the April, 1919, number of the report of the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, is entitled: "Control of Labor Conditions by International Action." The article is by Leifur Magnusson-evidently a gentleman with a foreign ancestry and alien turn of mind. In this article, vouched for by the U. S. Department of Labor, it is learned that "The Socialist Internationale" is the present organized expression of the International Socialist movement. It dates back to 1864 when Karl Marx organized the International Workingmen's Association of London. Thus the International Labour Conference, incorporated in the Treaty of Peace, distinctly is of Socialist origin. The organization was revived in 1889 and held its last meetng in Copenhagen in 1919, where 33 nations were represented. This movement was followed by the International Trades Secretariat, and since 1913 the International Secretariat has been the central executive organ of the International Federation of Labor. Nearly all the members come from European countries and represent collective policies —that is, state capitalism or socialism. As an adjunct to it, the International Association for Labor Legislation was formed in Paris in 1910 for the

purpose of promoting treaties touching the movement of labor, emigration, equality of treatment of nationals and aliens and uniform labor standards.

This is the organization which took advantage of the presence of the Peace Conference in Paris and succeeded in having attached to the Treaty what is known as the "International Labour Conference" section. A program of purely European and socialistic origin was grafted upon a document designed to bring peace between the Allied and Associated Powers on one hand and Germany on the other. To say the least, the process of the granting was novel, if not revolutionary. A Commission on International Labor Legislation, headed by Mr. Samuel Gompers and comprising delegates from Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Belgium, formulated a report and submitted a program which was adopted by the Peace Conference and incorporated in the Treaty of Peace. Like the Covenant of the League of Nations the Labour Conference is entirely foreign to a treaty of peace with Germany, to negotiate which the conference met at Versailles.

While the program outlined is innocent on its face, the possibilities are revealed first in the aims and objects of the European Internationale Socialist Organization-collectivism, destruction of capitalism and the wage system, and the public ownership of industries and utilities; second in the language used in the Labour Conference section of the Treaty defining the functions of the General Confer

ence and the Governing Board to be the consideration of "all subjects relating to the international adjustment of conditions of industrial life and labour." That is sufficiently comprehensive to meet the views of any socialist or internationalist. There is no question touching the production and distribution of wealth or the policies of nations in solving their own industrial and economic problems which can escape the consideration and "recommendation" of this "International Labour Conference" in which the United States will have four votes out of 128, and perhaps no vote at all in the Governing Board of twenty-four.

Twenty-seven nations (or separate countries) together with four self-governing British colonies and India (not a self-governing colony) will be represented in the General Conference. Ten will be European, seven Asiatic, seven North American, six South American and two African. The British Empire with her colonies and India will be represented by 24 delegates, and the 26 other countries (including the United States) will be represented by four delegates each. The British Empire will have only eight less than 25 per cent of the entire membership, while the United States, with more at stake, with a larger industrial population and with far greater industries, will have three and one-half per cent of the entire membership. In voting power the United States will be on a par with Cuba, Gautemala, Honduras, Li

The idea is preposterous! Think of Hedjaz, Siam, Liberia, India or even China and Japan voting to determine what the industrial or economic policy of the United States shall be! Think what the power of Great Britain, with her colonies united on an Imperial Commercial and Preferential Tariff policy, might be! Labor is a vital factor in the cost of production, and the cost of production in a large measure, will control in the future commercial struggle of the world. Suppose Great Britain, France and Italy, together with Japan should form an anti-American commercial alliance and with their 36 votes in the International Labour Conference gain control and seek to force a labor program crippling the United States? With only four votes in the Conference what could the United States do? Nothing but submit to the consequences. Suppose the United States refused to carry out the program? An economic boycott would follow. Such possibilities are sufficient to warn patriotic Americans.

Yet it is argued that the aims of the organizations are to raise the labor standards of all other countries to the level of the American standard. Will China and Japan, or even Great Britain, France and Italy agree to this? By no means, for that would mean defeat of their plans for a resumption of domination in the trade of the world and the re-capture of the markets of the world. In the struggle

the tendency will not be to raise the low standard countries but to lower the high standard countries. Water always runs down hill. No International Labour Conference can be sufficiently strong to embrace in its protecting scope the workmen and workwomen of the world. If American workmen and workwomen think they will improve their condition under international rather than national protection, they have a serious disappointment in store for them.

Examination of the labor and industrial conditions of the 32 countries, including the colonies of Great Britain and India, faintly suggests the folly of attempting to protect labor conditions the world over by an international board, and the impossibility of trying to raise and make uniform or even approximately uniform the standards of all.

Take the European countries in the proposed Labour Conference- even the best are low grade compared with the United States, while Greece, Poland and Portugal are below comparison; and Roumania, the Croat-Slovene State and Czecho-Slavonia are out of consideration. Take the Asiatic countries-Japan, China, Siam, India and Hedjaz are either cheaplabor countries or slave countries. Australia and New Zealand would do Great Britain's bidding. In North America-Canada would follow Great Britain's lead, while the countries south to Panama are low-wage or practically peon countries. All the countries in South America are lowwage countries, mostly agricultural, and all more or less backward. Even in Brazil, one of the most advanced

countries in South America, out of a population of 17,000,000 more than 80 per cent can neither read nor write. In this international hopper the tendency will be to drag down the high-grade countries, not lift up the low-grade countries. If the dreams of the International Labour Conference are to be realized even partially, the burden must rest on the high-grade countries. With its four votes, what can the United States do toward solving this tremendous problem?

The proposed Covenant of the League of Nations contains no greater dangers to the United States than the proposed International Labour Conference. Amendments and reservations to the Covenant intended to safeguard the sovereignty and political independence of this country will not reach the dangers nor cure the defects of the International Labour Conference. Giving the United States the same number of votes in the League Assembly and Council that Great Britain will have, and explaining or altering Article X of the Covenant and the section referring to the Monroe Doctrine, will have no effect on the Labour Conference. Great Britain will have 24 votes and the United States will have four in that organization. The powers, liabilities and responsibilities of the General Conference and the Governing Body will remain as before. To remedy defects and avoid dangers, the whole matter of representation and the powers and functions of the General Labour Conference should be revised.

Why should this wonderful nation enter into a solemn agreement giving thirty-one other countries or colonies,